Whenever a movement of social activism wants to fire up the populace to support its cause, it seeks a "hot-button issue" to ignite the flames of popular passion into a fervor that will promote the objective. The Jewish revolutionaries who were seeking the liberation of Palestine from Roman occupation in the seventh decade of the first century had apparently selected the restoration of the legitimate Aaronic high priesthood and the propriety of the Levitical priesthood in the temple as issues of sufficient concern to compel the Jewish populace to support their cause of insurrection and revolt against Rome.

Paul, under house arrest in Rome (Acts 28:30), was advised of this ploy and felt compelled to advise the Christians of Judea that they should avoid getting involved in this politically inspired power-play, that was playing on their religious sentiment. His argument was that the old covenant priesthood was already obsolete. He wanted his kinsmen after the flesh and "brethren" in the spirit to recognize that Jesus, their Messiah and Savior, was the high priest according to the order of Melchizedek, and the priesthood of Jesus had superseded the entire Aaronic and Levitical priesthoods, which had now been invalidated by the annulment of the entire old covenant with its Mosaic Law. Paul's thesis is that the living Lord Jesus is the "better permanent and perpetual priest of God" in the context of a "better covenant" (7:22), providing a "better hope" (7:19) of relational intimacy with God. There was no reason for the Jerusalem Christians to revert back to the cultic Judaic premises and practices of priesthood, and no reason to support the promotion of such in revolt against Rome.

The little Pharisaic Jewish lawyer was meticulous in crafting his case. This entire section of the epistle to the Hebrew Christians in Jerusalem (chapters 6-10) reads like a "legal brief" wherein Paul carefully documents his argument that the royal priesthood of Jesus Christ is superior to the entire Judaic priesthood. Trained in the rabbinic legal and scriptural interpretive techniques of his time, Paul employs them masterfully, even though contemporary hermeneutic scholars might question Paul's exegetical rationale. Paul, for example, uses "the argument of silence" (cf. 7:3,8), arguing from the absence of any stated lineage of Melchizedek to establish the permanent and perpetual priesthood of Jesus. Paul also argues that priority in time establishes superiority, claiming that Melchizedek's priority to Levi serves as a precedent (cf. 7:9,10) to establish the superiority of Christ's priesthood over the Levitical priesthood. Though we might have reservations about Paul's legal and logical reasoning, it was consistent with the arguments of the accepted rabbinic hermeneutics of his day. This does not make it easy for the modern reader to follow Paul's argument, however. "Legal briefs" are never easy reading for the general public, and we can appreciate that Paul had forewarned his readers that he had "much to say" about Melchizedek and his relation to Jesus Christ, and that it was "hard to explain" (5:11).

7:1     Getting to the point that he has been aiming at, Paul writes, "For this Melchizedek", previously mentioned in the foregoing verse (6:20) and earlier in the epistle in 5:6,10, and first mentioned Biblically in the historical narrative of Genesis 14:17-20, was the "king of Salem, priest of the Most High God". Paul wanted to emphasize the king-priest combination of Melchizedek in order to apply such as a prefiguring of Jesus Christ as both King and Priest. Other than the information from Genesis 14, we have little or no information about Melchizedek. His identification as "king of Salem" probably indicates that he was the king of one of the city-states of Canaan, and particularly the one where Mt. Zion was located. The city-state of Salem eventually became the location of Jerusalem. Psalm 76:2 seems to equate the location of Salem and Zion, when Asaph writes that God's "tabernacle is in Salem, His dwelling place also is in Zion."

The very first mention of priesthood in the Bible, Genesis 14:18, identified Melchizedek as "priest of the Most High God." The designation of "the Most High God" is a translation of the Hebrew El Elyon, meaning not just the highest god in a pantheon of polytheism, but the singular, ultimate and absolute God above all, the transcendent deity who is Creator of heaven and earth, Jehovah God (cf. Gen. 14:22), the universal God who is unlimited and cannot be claimed as a proprietary deity by any group of people. This was the point that Paul wanted to make to the Jerusalem Christians who were being pressured to espouse the cause of Jewish nationalism and religionism that claimed Jehovah God as the proprietary God of the Jews, instead of recognizing Jesus Christ as the priest of the universal and absolute God of the universe. When Stephen made his defense, he explained that "the Most High does not dwell in houses made by human hands" (Acts 7:48), and by implication indicated that the priesthood of God's action could not be contained in tangible tabernacles and temples, as were the hallmark of Judaic religion.

Continuing the recitation of the brief appearance of Melchizedek on the horizon of Biblical history, Paul notes that Melchizedek "met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him,". Four kings and their armies from the north had invaded, attacked and defeated five kings and their armies from the city-state kingdoms of Canaan. Abraham's nephew, Lot, and his family lived in Sodom (Gen. 13:12) which was one of the cities defeated, and he and his family were taken captive. Abraham and his people pursued these intruders and defeated them "north of Damascus" (Gen. 14:15), and Abraham was bringing back Lot, his family and possessions, and the spoils of war when he met Melchizedek. Melchizedek, priest of the Most High God, "blessed" Abraham with "good words" of encouragement and assurance that he was indeed acting in accord with God's design, desire, and activity. Later (vss. 6,7), Paul will use this occasion of "blessing" as an argument for the lesser (Abraham) being "blessed" by the greater (Melchizedek).

7:2     Accurately relating the details of Genesis 14, Paul notes that it was Melchizedek, "to whom also Abraham divided a tenth part of all" the spoils of war. Paul will parlay this fact into an argument that the one-tenth tithe collected by the Levitical priests is superseded by the one-tenth presentation of the spoils of war to Melchizedek by Abraham (cf. vss. 4-10).

Paul explains that Melchizedek "was first of all, by interpretation" of his name, "king of righteousness,". Noting the etymology of the name Melchizedek, which is derived from the Hebrew words melek, meaning "king", and sedeq, meaning "righteousness", Paul is indirectly intimating that Melchizedek prefigured Jesus Christ as the "King of Righteousness." Previously in this epistle, Paul had applied Psalm 45:6 to Jesus and His possession of "the righteous scepter of His kingdom" (Heb. 1:8). Stephen (Acts 7:52) and Paul (Acts 22:14) had both announced Jesus as the promised "Righteous One" in fulfillment of the prophetic declarations of a Messianic "King of Righteousness" (cf. Ps. 22:31; 72:7; Isa. 32:17; 51:5,8; Jere. 23:6; 33:15,16).

Paul adds that Melchizedek was "also king of Salem, which is king of peace." The place name, "Salem," is derived from the Hebrew word shalom, which means "peace." Paul is already thinking of how Melchizedek prefigured Jesus as the "King of Peace," the "king who speaks peace to the nations" (Zech. 9:9,10), the One in whom "the work of righteousness will be peace" (Isa. 32:17) for "righteousness and peace will kiss each other" (Ps. 85:10) in the work of the Messiah. Jesus was the Messianic "Prince of Peace" who would have "no end to His kingdom" (Isa. 9:6,7). Indeed, "Jesus, Himself, is our peace" (Eph. 2:14), as well as our righteousness (I Cor. 1:30).

7:3     Employing the "argument of silence", Paul argues that since there is no record of his genealogy with date of birth and death in Genesis 14, Melchizedek is "without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life". Obviously, this is not literally true, for as an historical character Melchizedek did have birth and death, paternity and maternity, and genealogical family connections. But the absence of a record of these allows Paul to figuratively apply these details to similitude with the priesthood of Jesus Christ, and perhaps to the apparent ambiguity of His birth and death. It is the contrast with Judaic priesthood that Paul is primarily emphasizing by this "argument of silence", however. In the Aaronic and Levitical priesthoods the lineage of descendancy was extremely important. The credentials of genealogy were essential for the succession of the Jewish priesthoods, and this point was being emphasized by the Zealots who were mobilizing the Palestinians against Rome. Paul, on the other hand, was arguing that Melchizedek was "made like the Son of God," i.e. that the Melchizedekan priesthood, like the priesthood of Christ, was established by God without temporal and physiological restrictions. The absence of the external limitations and requirements of physical succession allows the Melchizedekan/Christic priesthood to be one that is eternal and forever (Ps. 110:4). Melchizedek, as a forerunner/type of Christ, "remains a priest unto perpetuity," in a priesthood that is not limited by time or physical succession, but carries through in continuity and perpetuity. It is this ongoing and eternal character of Christ's priesthood that Paul is attempting to contrast with the physical succession characteristic of the Judaic priesthoods.

7:4     Verses 4-10 constitute a corollary argument in Paul's reasoning to emphasize the superiority of the Melchizedekan priesthood (and thus the priesthood of Christ) over the Levitical priesthood, based on Abraham's payment of one-tenth of the spoils of war to Melchizedek. Paul does not seem to be concerned about the difference in Abraham's giving a tenth of the spoils of war and the God-ordained practice of the peoples of Israel giving a tithe of one-tenth for the Levitical priesthood, because the Greek word dekate means both "tenth" and "tithe". Instead, he focuses on the one-tenth similarity to argue for the superiority of the priesthood of Melchizedek and Christ.

"Now observe how great this man was," Paul appeals to His Christian readers in Jerusalem. His objective is to establish the greatness of Melchizedek in order to demonstrate the greatness of Jesus Christ. Despite later attempts by commentators to cast Melchizedek as an apparitional theophany or a pre-incarnate Christophany, Paul seems to regard Melchizedek as an historical human king and priest "to whom Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth of the spoils of war." Abraham was regarded by the Jewish people as "the patriarch," the ancestral founder, the "father" (cf. Jn. 8:33-40), the progenitor of the Hebrew people and the nation of Israel. Paul's argument is that "the patriarch", Abraham, who represented the entire genealogy and ethnicity of the Hebrew people-group, felt obliged to give "a tenth of the spoils of war" to Melchizedek, the priest, thus establishing the superiority of Melchizedek over Abraham. Melchizedek's priesthood was not based on ethnic ancestry, for he was a Gentile unrelated to the Hebraic bloodline, but his priesthood was established by "the Most High God" to be a timeless and universal priesthood culminating in Jesus Christ.

7:5     Paul begins his comparison of the Melchizedekan priesthood and the Levitical priesthood, basing his argument on the authority of the two orders of priesthood to collect a tenth from their constituents, and arguing that the lesser always pays the greater, while the greater "blesses" the lesser.

"And, indeed, those of the sons of Levi receiving the priesthood have a commandment to collect a tithe from the people according to the Law, that is, from their brethren, although these are descended from Abraham." The use of present tense verbs in this statement likely indicates that the Levitical priesthood and the collection of tithes were still functioning at the time when this epistle was written, prior to 70 A.D. Paul was noting that the Mosaic Law of the old covenant did indeed establish the commandment that the Hebrew people pay a tenth of their income to the priestly tribe of Levi (Numbers 18:21-24), and a tenth of that tithe was then to be distributed to the high priest (Numbers 18:26-28), and was to be used in the maintenance of the temple (Neh. 10:37). By the time this epistle was written in the first century A.D., the collection of tithes was severely corrupted, and the Jewish historian, Josephus, records that the high priests were extorting the tithes directly from the people to such an extent that some of the Levitical priests were starving to death.1 It is not difficult to see why the reform of the priesthood was being used as a rallying point for the revolutionaries, and why Paul was attempting to counter such among the Judean Christians by appealing to the priesthood of Christ.

7:6     Returning to Melchizedek, Paul writes, "But the one not tracing his genealogy from them received a tenth from Abraham..." Melchizedek, the priest, whose genealogy is not recorded (cf. vs. 3), was not related by ethnic descendancy from Abraham nor from the priestly tribe of Levi. He was apparently a Gentile whose priesthood was established by the Most High God, and Abraham spontaneously recognized the rightful claim of Melchizedek to receive one tenth of the spoils of war. This payment of one tenth was not mandated by the legal necessity of a commandment of law, but by the patriarch's spiritual discernment and awareness of one who was a priestly representative of God. The functional basis of Melchizedek's priesthood was not that of legal mandate, ethnic succession, or authoritative position, but the function of God in the person of the priest.

Melchizedek, in turn, "blessed the one having the promises." This does not indicate that Melchizedek conferred a "blessing" of particular privilege upon Abraham, but refers simply to Melchizedek's expressing God's "good words" of assurance and encouragement that Abraham was indeed being used of God. Abraham, the one being "blessed," was the one who had received the promises of God (cf. Genesis 12,13) concerning God's intent in Jesus Christ (cf. II Cor. 1:20).

7:7     Paul's conclusion is that "without any contradiction the lesser is blessed by the greater." Unquestionably and without dispute, Paul argues, it is an axiomatically accepted certainty that the greater or superior (in this case, Melchizedek) blesses the lesser or inferior (in this case, Abraham). Paul does not entertain the fact that a lesser might encourage or assure a superior, and seems to consider the action of "blessing" as a certain criteria of superiority.

7:8     Now contrasting the duration of the two priesthoods, Paul writes that in the case of the Levitical priesthood, "here, dying men receive tithes," The priests of the tribe of Levi were mortal; they were subject to death, whereupon they would be succeeded by others, who would in turn serve God for a few years and die also. But in the case of the Melchizedekan priesthood, the priest received tithes, and "there it is witnessed that he lives." Is Paul basing the validity of this "witness" on the "argument of silence" and the absence of any record of the death of Melchizedek in Genesis 14 (cf. vs. 3)? Or is Paul arguing that the "witness" of the perpetuity of the priesthood of Melchizedek is based on Psalm 110:4 and the divine oath that the Messiah would be "a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek (an argument that will be amplified in 21-28)? Or is Paul arguing backwards from Christ's assumption of the Melchizedekan priesthood, that he and his readers, as Christians, have "witnessed" that the living Lord Jesus lives in the immortality of an eternal and perpetual function of the Melchizedekan priesthood? Perhaps, "all of the above."

7:9,10     Drawing the conclusion for his argument of the superiority of the Melchizedekan priesthood over the Levitical priesthood, Paul employs the Hebrew logic of solidarity through representative descendancy, explaining that "it might be said that through Abraham even Levi, having received tithes, paid tithes, for he was still in the loins of the father when Melchizedek met him." This concept of solidarity was an important theme in Hebrew thought. Levi was "in Abraham" seminally and genetically, and therefore Abraham's actions were representative of Levi's actions. So when Abraham offered a tenth of the spoils of war to Melchizedek, Levi, who was "in Abraham", in essence paid tithes to Melchizedek. Since the one who pays the tithe is inferior to the one who receives the tithe, therefore, Levi (and the priesthood he represents) is inferior to Melchizedek (and the priesthood he represents, which includes that of Jesus Christ). This is the gist of Paul's argument.

Abraham was actually the great-grandfather of Levi, but previous generations were regarded as "fathers" or "forefathers", and thus Levi can be said to be "in the loins of his father," Abraham. Technically, if this were but an argument of physical solidarity, it could be noted that Jesus was genealogically a descendant of Abraham (cf. Matt. 1:1-17), and Jesus, being "in Abraham" by physical representation, paid a tithe to Melchizedek. Since it was not pertinent to his argument, Paul does not address this fact, for it was his intent to establish the solidarity of Levi and Abraham in order to assert the superiority of Melchizedek and his priesthood, and thus of Christ's priesthood. A similar concept of spiritual solidarity and representation is to be found when Paul refers to mankind as either being "in Adam" (cf. Rom. 5:12; I Cor. 15:22) or "in Christ" (cf. Rom. 8:1; II Cor. 5:17), implying that Adam's actions represented all those spiritually identified with him, and the actions of Christ were representative of all those spiritually identified with Him.

7:11     Whereas the argument in 7:1-10 was based on Genesis 14:17-20 and was concerned with the superiority of the Melchizedekan priesthood over the Levitical priesthood, the emphasis changes in 7:11-28 to the superiority of Jesus Christ and His priesthood "according to the order of Melchizedek" over the Aaronic and Levitical priesthoods in accord with the prophetic text of Psalm 110:4 (quoted in verses 17 and 21).

Paul begins by denying that the Aaronic and Levitical priesthoods, integrally connected, as they were, with the old covenant Mosaic Law, could achieve God's ultimate and eternal intent to mankind to be redeemed and restored to function as intended. "If indeed perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for the people has been given it on the basis of Law), why was there yet a need for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not designated according to the order of Aaron?" Paul is not questioning whether the system of the Levitical priesthood was a perfect system, or whether it achieved the purpose that God intended for it. Instead, Paul is noting that "if (as is not the case) the perfection of humanity could have been achieved so that mankind could have been restored to their created end-objective via the Levitical priesthood and the old covenant Mosaic Law to which it was integrally connected, there would have been no need for the eschatological expectation (in accord with Psalm 110:4) of an effectual and eternal priest 'according to the order of Melchizedek'." The Judaic priesthood and the old covenant Mosaic Law (cf. 19) could not make mankind function in the perfection of the end-objective that God intended. They were but an imperfect, preliminary and provisional measure ­ a stop-gap system that foreshadowed the "Son, made perfect forever" (cf. 28), the perfect sacrifice and the perfect dynamic by which mankind can be restored to their perfect purpose. The Levitical priesthood and the Mosaic Law are integrally connected and mutually dependent. The old covenant priesthood was established by the Law, and the Law governed the regulations of the Levitical priesthood. On the other hand, it can be stated that the inevitable violation of the Law necessitated the Levitical priesthood for temporary expiation and reconciliation, and the Law was established to expose the need of the priesthood of Jesus Christ which was to operate through divine grace rather than through legal performance. The Mosaic Law and the Judaic priesthood are inseparable. The failure of one to achieve God's purpose implies the failure of the other (cf. 12). When one is invalidated and cancelled (cf. 18), the other is likewise nullified and abrogated.

The Mosaic Law and the Judaic priesthood were insufficient and inadequate to achieve God's objective of the restoration of human function to the glory of God, for such required the sacrifice of the God-man in order to allow for the grace-provision of deity within humanity. If the Law and priesthood had been adequate there would have been no reason for the eschatological expectation of a Messianic priest "according to the order of Melchizedek" (cf. Ps. 110:4), rather than in the existent traditional and legal order of Aaron.

7:12     The integral oneness and inseparability of priesthood and Law are explained in the statement, "For the priesthood being changed, out of necessity becomes a change of Law also." The priesthood and the Law each necessitate the other, and are dependent on the other. Since the priesthood is being altered and exchanged from the Aaronic and Levitical priesthood to the Melchizedekan priesthood of Jesus Christ, Paul argues that the entire Judaic and Mosaic Law is also exchanged from a system of legal performance to the grace-dynamic of God's Law "written on the hearts and minds" of Christian people (cf. 8:10; 10:16).

7:13     To explain the exchange of priesthood that Paul was referring to, he writes, "For the One concerning whom these things are expressed has partaken of another tribe from which no one has served at the altar." "The One concerning whom these things are expressed," both in Psalm 110:4 and in Paul's argument here in the epistle to the Hebrew Christians in Jerusalem, is obviously Jesus Christ. In His incarnation Jesus partook (cf. 2:14) genetically and genealogically from the tribe of Judah, from which tribe the Messiah was expected as a king in the line of David, and no one from the tribe of Judah had officiated as a priest in the Jewish tabernacle or temple, for that was reserved for the priestly tribe of Levi (cf. Deut. 21:5).

7:14     "For it is clear that our Lord has arisen out of Judah, a tribe unto which Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood." Paul drives home his argument. It is logically, theologically and genealogically (cf. Matt. 1:2,3; 2:6) evident and obvious that our Lord Jesus Christ descended from the tribe of Judah, a tribe that Moses never connected with priesthood. The reference to Jesus as "Lord" conveys a definite connotation of Jesus' essential deity, as in 2:3 and 13:20 (cf. I Tim. 1:14; II Tim. 1:8), implying that Jesus was essentially one with Yahweh, the "Lord God" of Israel. The Messiah was expected to be a king from the same tribe of Judah, as was King David (cf. Rom. 1:3; II Tim. 2:8; Rev. 5:5). In order to be a combined King-Priest, Jesus' priesthood would have to be of a different order than the Levitical priesthood which was dependent on the legalities of physical descent from Levi.

7:15     "And this" change of law and priesthood "is more abundantly clear, if another priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek," The clarification of how Jesus could be both king and priest simultaneously is obviated by the fact that the priesthood of Christ is in accord with the prior and superior priesthood of Melchizedek. As the eschatological fulfillment of the prefiguring of David, as king, and Melchizedek, as priest, Jesus became the King-Priest sufficient to perfect mankind to the purpose God intended, and to establish the "royal priesthood" of "a people for God's own possession" (I Peter 2:9).

7:16     As the fulfillment of the Melchizedekan priesthood, Jesus "has become such, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an indestructible life." Jesus' priesthood is not based on the legal requirement of physical heredity from the tribe of Levi or the family of Aaron. The priesthood of Jesus is based on "the power of an indestructible life." That "indestructible life" emerged out of the grave in the resurrection. In the resurrection the divine life of Jesus Christ was raised indestructible, incorruptible, and imperishable (cf. I Cor. 15:42-45). The permanent, eternal and immortal life of God in Christ was displayed by Jesus' resurrection from a vicarious death that could not and did not dissolve the eternality of His divine life. In the first sermon of the church, Peter explained that "God had sworn to David to send one of his descendants upon his throne, and He looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ Therefore, let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him (Jesus) both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:30-36). Paul begins his epistle to the Romans by indicating that the "Son was born a descendant of David according to the flesh, and was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead" (Rom. 1:3,4). The dynamic power of the resurrection-life of the risen Lord Jesus is the "power of an indestructible life" that confirms the priesthood of Jesus and the kingship of Jesus, as well as the unconquerable eternal and immortal life of Jesus available to restore all mankind to God's perfect purpose. The Christians in Jerusalem needed only to rely on the "indestructible life" of the risen Lord Jesus, rather than on joining a social and political campaign to destroy Rome in order to establish a physical kingdom with a religious priesthood.

7:17     Paul connects the "indestructible life" of Jesus back to the prophetic words of the Psalmist in Psalm 110:4. "For it is witnessed that 'THOU ART A PRIEST FOREVER ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK'." A priesthood that is "forever" must, of necessity, be indestructible, indissoluble, and unconquerable; i.e. permanent, immortal and eternal. It is an intercessory life that is not quantifiable, but only qualitatively defined as the very life of God.

7:18     Returning to the idea of the integral unity of priesthood and Law (cf. 12), and the fact that a change in one involves a change in the other, Paul explains that "a putting away of the former commandment is effected, because of its weakness and uselessness" The "former commandment" could conceivably refer specifically to the commandment in the Law concerning the Aaronic and Levitical priesthoods, but more likely it is to be inclusively identified as the entirety of the old covenant Mosaic Law, for the clarification in the following parenthesis (vs. 19) refers inclusively to "the Law." "Commandment" and "Law" are sometimes used synonymously in the Scriptures (cf. Exod. 16:28; Rom. 7:8-13). This "former commandment" of the Law was not only prior in terms of time, but preliminary and provisional in terms of preparation, to the grace-dynamic of Christ's "indestructible life" in the new covenant with its effectual power to restore man to God's perfect functional intent. The Law was impotent to do so. It provided no strength, power, or vitality to the people of God in order to implement God's objectives. Its commands for conformity by external performance without any divine dynamic to effect the demands, made it "useless," unhelpful, and ineffectual ­ of no profit, benefit or advantage. The Law did not need to be adjusted, altered or "tweaked". The only solution was that it be "put away" (cf. 9:26), set aside, nullified, annulled, invalidated, cancelled, abrogated, and rejected.

7:19     Parenthetically Paul explains, "(for the Law perfected nothing)". As he had stated earlier (vs. 11), the Jewish priesthood could not bring perfection, so now Paul explains that the Law could make nothing perfect (cf. 10:1). This is not to say that the Law did not serve its God-ordained preliminary and provisional purpose preparatory to Jesus Christ, but the Law could not bring mankind to the perfect functional end-objective of God for humanity. The Law made man aware of his frustrating inability to perform in accord with God's expectations and character, but only the "Son, made perfect forever" (vs. 28) could provide the eschatological fulfillment of the grace-dynamic of His own divine resurrection-life in order to perfect receptive mankind unto the functional end that God intends by His Being in action in and through man.

Only in Jesus Christ is there "a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God." The "indestructible life" of the risen Lord Jesus, acting in His perpetual intercessory priesthood, and serving as the dynamic of all divine demands by "the law written in our hearts" (8:16; 16:10) brings into and upon Christian people the internal provision of God's efficacious and effectual grace. Whereas the only hope of the Judaic Law and priesthood was in the future hope of a Messianic deliverer, Jesus now personally serves as the "better hope," the eschatological fulfillment of the Jewish expectations, and the dynamic living hope for all Christians. "Christ Jesus is our hope" (I Tim. 1:1), Paul explained to Timothy. And to the Christians in Colossae, Paul wrote that "Christ in you is the hope of glory" (Col. 1:27).

The revolutionary insurrectionists of Palestine were offering the Judean Christians a false hope in a promised restoration of Jewish nationalism and religion. Paul assures them that the "better hope" that all Christians have in Jesus Christ is the confident expectation of being restored to God's perfect objective for man by the indwelling dynamic of Christ's resurrection-life. That is not just a future expectation in heaven, but is the present expectation of functioning as fulfilled humanity as Christ lives in and through us to the glory of God. It is the present confident expectation "through which we draw near to God" in relational intimacy, based on a spiritual oneness with the Spirit of Christ (cf. I Cor. 6:17). Our "drawing near to God" (cf. 4:16; 7:25; 10:1,22; James 4:8) will include the communion of prayer, but should not be limited only to the Christian's prayer life, for the phrase is inclusive of the entirety of the intercommunion of God and man in Christ.

7:20     Continuing to document the exchange (cf. 12) of priesthoods from the Aaronic and Levitical to the Melchizedekan priesthood of Christ, Paul returns to the phrases of Psalm 110:4, addressing the topic of the "divine oath" in verses 20-22, and the idea of the "eternal priesthood" in verses 23-25.

Earlier in the epistle Paul had emphasized that God's promise to Abraham concerning Jesus Christ and the new covenant community of Christians was confirmed by an oath in Genesis 22:17 (cf. 6:12-18). Paul now takes the theme of the "divine oath" from Psalm 110:4, which he quotes in the next verse (21), and uses it as verification for the superior priesthood of Jesus Christ. "Inasmuch as" the priesthood of Christ was "not without oath-swearing," Jesus has become the surety of a better arrangement between God and man (cf. 22). The priesthood of Christ has been established and validated by a divine oath-taking. God's word is based on His unchangeable character so His sworn oath assures absolute veracity and the reliability to achieve by His own dynamic what has been sworn.

7:21     Again, apparently parenthetically, Paul inserts that "(for they indeed are those having become priests without oath-swearing" The Levitical priests were successively installed and invested as priests in accord with the legal order of the Mosaic Law. They followed the requirements of the legal system and took their turn in the progression of priests. There was no divine oath assuring that their actions were expressive of the Being and character of God.

"But" in contrast to the Levitical priests, "He," Jesus, was declared a priest "with oath-swearing, through the One" (God the Father) "saying before Him" (Jesus), 'THE LORD HAS SWORN AND WILL NOT CHANGE HIS MIND, THOU ART A PRIEST FOREVER');" By the binding oath of God, who must always act consistent with his faithful and inviolable character, and whose word is dependable and expressive of His Being, Jesus was sworn in as a priest by God Himself, and vested as the Son-priest with the very Being of God in action. God the Father declared, beforehand in time, and before the Son personally, "Thou art a priest forever."

7:22     "According to such a great" declaration of God's sworn placement as priest, "Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant." Jesus is not just the legal guarantee and surety of a better and more effectual arrangement between God and man, but He is the personal "guarantor" of a new order wherein He will personally bring into being the perfect objective that God has for man. Jesus is not just the "security deposit" of a new contract with mankind, but He is the personal substance and reality of the "better covenant" that God has unilaterally put in place by His grace. The covenant of Law that established the Levitical priesthood has been annulled and invalidated (cf. 18) as obsolete (cf. 8:13). The covenant of grace has been established by God's sworn decree whereby Jesus is "a priest forever" ­ the permanent and eternal priest of God. The efficacy of this intercessory priesthood of Jesus Christ is assured by the essential activity of the divine Being. "He who promised is faithful" (Heb. 10:23). "He will bring it to pass" (I Thess. 5:24). The "eternal security" of one's personal relationship with God in this new "eternal covenant" (13:20) is not based on man's actions or performance, nor even necessarily on a legally sworn statement, but on the reality of Christ's personal function as the "guarantor" that "He who began a good work in you will perfect it" (Phil. 1:6).

7:23     Employing the same contrast of "they indeed...but He" as he did in verse 21, Paul now contrasts the permanency and perpetuity of the Judaic priesthoods and the priesthood of Christ. "And they indeed are many, having become priests because they were prevented by death from continuing." The Levitical priests were plenteous and multiple. This multiplicity was necessitated by the temporality and mortality of the priests. They died, and were succeeded by others. The legal system of Levitical priesthood continued, but the priests kept dying. The continuity of the Levitical priesthood was constantly interrupted and disrupted. The inevitability of death in the mortal priests of the Jewish priesthoods necessitated the legal regulations of priestly succession. The continuity and perpetuation of the old covenant priesthoods came only by repetitive succession, which implies a segmented and temporal effectiveness. Though the Aaronic priesthood was referred to as a "perpetual priesthood" (cf. Exod. 29:9; 40:15; Numb. 25:13), the perpetuation was only by sequenced succession of sons from generation to generation.

7:24     "But He," Jesus Christ, "through His abiding forever, has the priesthood that is not passed on." Whereas the Jewish priesthoods involved the multiplicity of the "many" (23), the priesthood of Jesus Christ is singular. "There is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus" (I Tim. 2:5). Whereas the old covenant priesthoods were discontinuous because of the death of the priests, Jesus abides forever, "a priest forever" (Ps. 110:4), by "the power of an indestructible life" (16) displayed in resurrection. Whereas the priesthoods of Judaism were perpetuated by legal and familial succession, the priesthood of Jesus is perpetuated by the eternality of His own divine Being. The priesthood of Christ is "not passed on" to any successor, even though some ecclesiastical institutions in Christendom practice "priestly succession." Jesus is the better, supreme priest of God, whose priesthood is permanent and perpetual by reason of His own divine Being.

7:25     By logical deduction we may infer that "From this, indeed, He is able to save to the very end those drawing near to God through Him." Jesus is able, by the dynamic inherent in His own Being, to save those who through Him, as Christians, are drawing near in personal and spiritual intimacy to God. The need of fallen humanity is not for a religious pacifier or a reformation of behavioral performances. The need of mankind is, rather, to be "made safe" from the misuse and abuse of dysfunctional humanity, and to be restored to functional humanity by the indwelling presence of God in Christ. To "be saved" is, therefore, not just a personal event or a transactional experience of conversion, nor anticipated benefits in the future. To "be saved" is the dynamic process whereby God's perfect (cf. 11,19) objective is enacted in the restoration of a functional humanity in those receptive to God's presence and activity in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ, functioning as priest, is able to do that, without any additional supplementation, to the very end of time and to the fullest extent of salvation. The "finished work" (cf. Jn. 19:30) of Christ, functioning by His own "saving life" (Rom. 5:10), is able to "save" us completely, all the way through, unto God's ultimate end. "He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus" (Phil. 1:6). This happens as we are "drawing near" (cf. 4:16; 7:19; 10:1,22) by receptivity and availability to an ever-deeper relational intimacy with God. And this is only "through Him", Jesus Christ, for "no man comes to the Father, but through Him" (John 14:6).

This continuous relational intimacy of salvation is effected in Christians by Jesus, the eternal priest, who is "living always to intercede on our behalf." "Christ Jesus is He who died, who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us" (Rom. 8:34). The "power of an indestructible life" (16), which was victoriously displayed in the power of His resurrection from the dead (cf. Rom. 1:4), is dynamically expressed as the One who is a "priest forever" (Ps. 110:4) lives always to intercede, to intervene, and to attain God's perfect (cf. 11,19) end in our lives. The priestly function of the risen and living Lord Jesus makes Him far more than just a figure of history or a premise of theology, for He "lives always" as our intercessor and advocate (I John 2:1). He lives always to encourage, sustain, protect, minister, and to make Himself real to us and through us.

7:26     Paul begins to summarize his argument (26-28) of the superiority of the priesthood of Christ over the Judaic priesthoods. "For this was fitting for us," The priesthood of Jesus is just what we needed! It corresponds with the necessity, meets the demands, and fits the circumstances required to remedy man's fallen sinful condition, and to restore man to functional humanity. It is perfectly appropriate that God should provide such "a high priest, holy, blameless, undefiled, having become separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens."

Paul returns in verses 26-28 to referring to Jesus as "high priest." Since Paul is contrasting the old covenant Judaic priesthoods, both Aaronic and Levitical, to the priesthood of Jesus, there is no essential difference in the argument whether he speaks of Levitical priests or a high priest. As priest, Jesus is "holy", devout and consecrated (the Greek word is hosios rather than hagios). He is "blameless", being pure and having no evil. Such purity of character allows Him to be "undefiled" and uncontaminated by sin or anything contrary to the character of God. The phrase that Paul uses to describe Jesus' "having become separated from sinners" has been interpreted in various ways. Does Paul mean that by His sinlessness, despite being tempted (cf. 4:15), Jesus is distinct from all other men? Does Paul mean that Jesus as priest is distinguished from all other priests who are all sinners (cf. 27)? Or is the phrase to be integrally connected with the following phrase to indicate that Jesus was separated from all priests and other sinners by the historic occurrence of His ascension, whereby He, on the basis of His purity and perfection (sinlessness), could enter into the divine presence of the Father, and be exalted above the heavens in the triumph of transcendent glory, thus to intercede for mankind as priest with unhindered access to God? The latter interpretation seems best to correspond with Paul's earlier reference to our having "a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God" (4:14).

7:27     Jesus, as high priest, "does not have any need to day by day offer up sacrifices, as do the (Jewish) high priests, first for their own sins, then for those of the people," Paul's merging of the function of priests and high priests has caused consternation for some commentators. The primary responsibility of the high priest was to make the yearly sin-offering on the Day of Atonement (cf. Lev. 16:6-10; Heb. 9:7,25; 10:1,3), whereas the Levitical priests conducted the daily Jewish sacrifices at the temple. Yet, Paul seems to be referring to high priests offering daily sacrifices. His combining of the old covenant Jewish priesthoods was for the purpose of emphasizing the contrast between the plurality of the Jewish priests and the singularity of Christ; the sinfulness of the Judaic priests and the perfection of Christ; and the repetitiveness of the priestly sacrifices in the temple (whether annual or daily) as contrasted with the singularity and finality of Christ's sacrifice. Paul had previously mentioned the need of the Jewish priests to first offer sacrifices for their own sins prior to doing so for others in 5:3 (cf. 9:7; Lev. 4:3; 9:8; 16:6,11). Here his emphasis is on the final, all-sufficient completeness of Christ's sacrifice, "because this He did once and for all, having offered up Himself." While Melchizedek only offered "bread and wine" to Abraham, perhaps symbolic of the communion meal of the Lord's Supper, there is no record of his offering sacrifices relating to sin. Paul uses the Judaic priests as the prototype of priestly sacrifices for sin. The complexity of the argument is also amplified by the fact that Jesus Christ serves both as the sacrificing priest as well as the sacrifice (cf. 9:11-14, 23-28; 10:5-14, 19,20). As priest "He offered up Himself" as the singularly sufficient sacrifice for the sins of mankind, taking upon Himself the death consequences for all sin. He chose volitionally to thus "offer up Himself" as the vicarious sacrifice which alone would be sufficient to substitutionally take death for all men. But such death did not interrupt His priesthood (cf. 23), for death could not hold Him in its power (cf. Acts 2:24), and He was "raised from the dead, never to die again" (Rom. 6:9), but to function eternally as intercessory priest for all those "in Him." The death sacrifice of Christ in "offering up Himself once and for all" was the singularly sufficient sacrifice which finally and completely put an end to the old covenant system of sacrifices in the Jewish priesthoods.

7:28     Paul summarizes his foregoing argument, "For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak," The Mosaic Law of the old covenant regulated the appointments of many men unto the position of high priesthood. The Jewish priests were "beset by weakness" (5:2), being volitionally vulnerable to temptation, and succumbing to sinfulness as obviated by the need to make sacrifices for their own sins (5:3; 7:27). Their functional priesthood was also "weak," as the Jewish priesthood and its integral corollary, the Mosaic Law, had "no strength" to perfect (11,19) and restore humanity to the functional end-objective of God.

"But," in contrast, "the word of oath-swearing, (which came) after the Law, (appoints) a Son having been perfected forever." "The word of oath-swearing" is God's declaration in Psalm 110:4, "Thou art a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek," declaring and appointing the Son of God to be the eternal priest. Chronologically, the declaration of Psalm 110:4 came almost 1000 years after the establishment of the Mosaic Law as recorded in Exodus. Paul's argument is this case is that the divine declaration of priesthood in Psalm 110:4 is subsequent to and superior to the Law-based priesthoods which preceded, though previously he had argued that antecedence was the basis for superiority (cf. 9,10). The point Paul is making, however, is that the singularity of the Son of God is superior to the multiplicity of mere men as priests in Judaism, and this Christic superiority is because the Son was "made perfect forever." In contrast to the personal and functional "weakness" of the Judaic priests, Jesus was essentially perfect in Being, functionally perfect in behavior (sinless), and was "made perfect" (cf. 2:10; 5:8,9) in benefit for all mankind by His sinless substitutional sacrifice on their behalf. By the resurrection display of "the power of an indestructible life" (16), Jesus could function in a priesthood whereby His intercessory "finished work" can perfect (cf. 10:14; 11:40; 12:23) receptive humanity to God's functional end-objective, to bring glory to Himself by exhibiting His all-glorious character in created mankind. This perfect priesthood of Jesus is permanent and perpetual. He had been "made perfect forever," and is "a priest forever" (Ps. 110:4). The Greek text for "forever" is "unto the age." Jesus' finished work as priest in sacrificing Himself and in interceding for His own is operative in the eschatological age of these "last days" in which we now participate, and extends in perpetuity unto eternity.

Concluding Remarks:

When the Palestinian Christians, the original recipients of this letter, read Paul's arguments for the superiority of the priesthood of Jesus Christ, they were being pressured by their ethnic countrymen to "jump on the bandwagon" of revolt against Roman. The false promises of the Zealot insurrectionists was that the Jewish priesthoods would be restored to their original forms when the Jewish people controlled their own nation, religion, and destiny.

Paul wanted to forestall any participation by the Jerusalem Christians in the Jewish cause and its false premises. In order to do so he argues for the superiority of the priesthood of Jesus, "according to the order of Melchizedek", over all Judaic priesthoods, both Aaronic and Levitical. In Paul's mind, the priesthoods of Judaism were designed with planned obsolescence. They were only intended to be a pictorial prefiguring of the sacrificial nature of Christ's priesthood and Self-sacrifice. The incarnation of Jesus and His redemptive and restorative work fulfills the eschatological expectations pictured in the legal order of the Jewish priesthoods. The Aaronic and Levitical priesthoods, and the Mosaic Law which was foundation to such in the old covenant, have all been annulled, abrogated, and completely set aside (cf. 11,12,18,19). There was no reason for the Judean Christians to expect or desire the restoration of the Jewish priesthood that was impotent and had been rendered obsolete.

Paul wanted to draw the Palestinian Christians away from proprietary views of priesthood that gave exclusive right to the Jewish peoples. He wanted to broaden their horizons from a provincial priesthood that functioned geographically in Palestine, and more specifically at the location of the temple in Jerusalem, to the universal priesthood of Christ for all men in every place. Whereas the Jewish priesthood was a priesthood pro tempore, for the temporary time that God intended to use it to illustrate what He was going to do in Jesus Christ, Paul wanted to emphasize that the priesthood of Jesus is eternal, final, permanent and perpetual.

The priesthood of Jesus Christ involved the sacrifice of Himself on the cross of Calvary to effect redemption from sin for all men, but His priesthood continues perpetually in His continuing intercessory work, as the "saving life" (Rom. 5:10) of Christ facilitates Christians "drawing near" to God in ever-deeper relational union and intimacy. The Jerusalem Christians, in the midst of their persecution and ostracism, may have been wondering whether the risen Lord Jesus was indeed interceding on their behalf. On the verge of impending war against the Romans, they needed to be assured that Jesus, "the priest forever," was continuing His priestly work to perfect them in His eternal life, despite what external circumstances might transpire.

Paul's meticulous arguments for the superiority of the priesthood of Jesus can often appear to the modern reader to be arduous and even redundant. But we trust that this "legal brief" was sufficiently understandable to the Christians in Palestine to cause them to trust in Jesus as their only hope, recognizing Jesus as "the better permanent and perpetual priest of God."

FOOTNOTE

1    Josephus, Flavius, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged. "The Antiquities of the
      Jews." Book 20, Sect. 181,206,207. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. 1996. pgs. 536,538.